ESTATE OF ROGELIO G.

ONG - versus - Minor JOANNE RODJIN

DIAZ
G.R. No. 171713. December 17, 2007
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
FACTS:
A Complaint for compulsory recognition with prayer for support
pending litigation was filed by minor Joanne Rodjin Diaz (Joanne),
represented by her mother and guardian, Jinky C. Diaz (Jinky), against
Rogelio G. Ong (Rogelio) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac
City. As alleged by Jinky in her Complaint in November 1993 in Tarlac
City, she and Rogelio got acquainted. This developed into friendship and
later blossomed into love. At this time, Jinky was already married to a
Japanese national, Hasegawa Katsuo, in a civil wedding solemnized on 19
February 1993 by Municipal Trial Court Judge Panfilo V. Valdez.
From January 1994 to September 1998, Jinky and Rogelio cohabited and
lived
together
at
Fairlane
Subdivision,
and
later
at Capitol Garden, Tarlac City. From this live-in relationship, minor Joanne
Rodjin Diaz was conceived and on 25 February 1998 was born at the Central
Luzon Doctors Hospital, Tarlac City. Rogelio brought Jinky to the hospital
and took minor Joanne and Jinky home after delivery. Rogelio paid all the
hospital bills and the baptismal expenses and provided for all of minor
Joannes needs recognizing the child as his.
In September 1998, Rogelio abandoned minor Joanne and Jinky, and
stopped supporting minor Joanne, falsely alleging that he is not the father of
the child. Rogelio, despite Jinkys remonstrance, failed and refused and
continued failing and refusing to give support for the child and to
acknowledge her as his daughter, thus leading to the filing of the heretofore
adverted complaint. After summons had been duly served upon Rogelio, the
latter failed to file any responsive pleading despite repeated motions for
extension, prompting the trial court to declare him in default in its Order
dated 7 April 1999. Rogelios Answer with Counterclaim and Special and
Affirmative Defenses was received by the trial court only on 15 April
1999.Jinky was allowed to present her evidence ex parte on the basis of
which the trial court on 23 April 1999 rendered a decision granting the
reliefs prayed for in the complaint.
In its Decision, the RTC ruked in favor of the plaintiff and ordered defendant
to recognize and support her.
ISSUE: WON DNA analysis is proper.

RULING:
There had been divergent and incongruent statements and assertions
bandied about by the parties to the present petition. But with the
advancement in the field of genetics, and the availability of new technology,
it can now be determined with reasonable certainty whether Rogelio is the
biological father of the minor, through DNA testing. DNA is the
fundamental building block of a persons entire genetic make-up. DNA is
found in all human cells and is the same in every cell of the same
person. Genetic identity is unique. Hence, a persons DNA profile can
determine his identity
DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological
sample obtained from an individual is examined. The DNA is processed to
generate a pattern, or a DNA profile, for the individual from whom the
sample is taken. This DNA profile is unique for each person, except for
identical twins. Everyone is born with a distinct genetic blueprint called
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). It is exclusive to an individual (except in the
rare occurrence of identical twins that share a single, fertilized egg), and
DNA is unchanging throughout life. Being a component of every cell in the
human body, the DNA of an individuals blood is the very DNA in his or her
skin cells, hair follicles, muscles, semen, samples from buccal swabs, saliva,
or other body parts.
The chemical structure of DNA has four bases. They are known as A
(Adenine), G (guanine), C (cystosine) and T (thymine). The order in which
the four bases appear in an individuals DNA determines his or her physical
make up. And since DNA is a double stranded molecule, it is composed of
two specific paired bases, A-T or T-A and G-C or C-G. These are called
genes. Every gene has a certain number of the above base pairs distributed in
a particular sequence. This gives a person his or her genetic
code. Somewhere in the DNA framework, nonetheless, are sections that
differ. They are known as polymorphic loci, which are the areas analyzed in
DNA typing (profiling, tests, fingerprinting). In other words, DNA typing
simply means determining the polymorphic loci.
How is DNA typing performed? From a DNA sample obtained or extracted,
a molecular biologist may proceed to analyze it in several ways. There are
five (5) techniques to conduct DNA typing. They are: the RFLP (restriction
fragment length polymorphism); reverse dot blot or HLA DQ a/Pm loci
which was used in 287 cases that were admitted as evidence by 37 courts in
the U.S. as of November 1994; DNA process; VNTR (variable number
tandem repeats); and the most recent which is known as the PCR([polymerase] chain reaction) based STR (short tandem repeats) method
which, as of 1996, was availed of by most forensic laboratories in the
world. PCR is the process of replicating or copying DNA in an evidence

sample a million times through repeated cycling of a reaction involving the

so-called DNA polymerize enzyme. STR, on the other hand, takes
measurements in 13 separate places and can match two (2) samples with a
reported theoretical error rate of less than one (1) in a trillion.
Just like in fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing, matches are determined. To
illustrate, when DNA or fingerprint tests are done to identify a suspect in a
criminal case, the evidence collected from the crime scene is compared with
the known print. If a substantial amount of the identifying features are the
same, the DNA or fingerprint is deemed to be a match. But then, even if only
one feature of the DNA or fingerprint is different, it is deemed not to have
come from the suspect.
As earlier stated, certain regions of human DNA show variations between
people. In each of these regions, a person possesses two genetic types
called allele, one inherited from each parent. In [a] paternity test, the
forensic scientist looks at a number of these variable regions in an individual
to produce a DNA profile. Comparing next the DNA profiles of the mother
and child, it is possible to determine which half of the childs DNA was
inherited from the mother. The other half must have been inherited from the
biological father. The alleged fathers profile is then examined to ascertain
whether he has the DNA types in his profile, which match the paternal types
in the child. If the mans DNA types do not match that of the child, the man
is excluded as the father. If the DNA types match, then he is not excluded as
the father.
Amidst the protestation of petitioner against the DNA analysis, the
resolution thereof may provide the definitive key to the resolution of the
issue of support for minor Joanne.Our articulation in Agustin v. Court of
Appeals is particularly relevant, thus:
Our faith in DNA testing, however, was not quite so steadfast in the previous
decade. In Pe Lim v. Court of Appeals (336 Phil. 741, 270 SCRA
1), promulgated in 1997, we cautioned against the use of DNA because
DNA, being a relatively new science, (had) not as yet been accorded official
recognition by our courts. Paternity (would) still have to be resolved by such
conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating acts,verbal and written,
by the putative father.
In 2001, however, we opened the possibility of admitting DNA as evidence
of parentage, as enunciated in Tijing v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.
125901, 8 March 2001, 354 SCRA 17]:
x x x Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we
adopt the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have now
the facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage
testing. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute

(UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct

DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based
on the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from
the mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the
alleged father and child are analyzed to establish parentage. Of course, being
a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to
challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts should not
hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that
courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid
of situations presented, since to reject said results is to deny progress.
The first real breakthrough of DNA as admissible and authoritative evidence
in Philippine jurisprudence came in 2002 with out en banc decision
in People v. Vallejo [G.R. No. 144656, 9 May 2002, 382 SCRA 192] where
the rape and murder victims DNA samples from the bloodstained clothes of
the accused were admitted in evidence. We reasoned that the purpose of
DNA testing (was) to ascertain whether an association exist(ed) between the
evidence sample and the reference sample. The samples collected (were)
subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile.
Moreover, in our en banc decision in People v. Yatar [G.R. No. 150224, 19
May 2004, 428 SCRA 504], we affirmed the conviction of the accused for
rape with homicide, the principal evidence for which included DNA test
results. x x x. Coming now to the issue of remand of the case to the trial
court, petitioner questions the appropriateness of the order by the Court of
Appeals directing the remand of the case to the RTC for DNA testing given
that petitioner has already died. Petitioner argues that a remand of the case to
the RTC for DNA analysis is no longer feasible due to the death of
Rogelio. To our mind, the alleged impossibility of complying with the order
of remand for purposes of DNA testing is more ostensible than real.
From the foregoing, it can be said that the death of the petitioner does
not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist
appropriate biological samples of his DNA. As defined above, the term
biological sample means any organic material originating from a persons
body, even if found in inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA
testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and
bones.